<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<!--  RSS generated by www.taxpolicycenter.org on Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:00:25 EST -->

<rss version="2.0">


<channel>
    <title>Tax Policy Center: Social Security</title>
    <link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org</link>
    <description>Tax Policy Center reports on: Social Security - The Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is comprised of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright 2007 Tax Policy Center</copyright>
    <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:00:25 EST</lastBuildDate>
    


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Are There Opportunities to Increase Social Security Progressivity despite Underfunding?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[This paper reviews why Social Security fails to lift more aged low-wage workers and people of color out of poverty. It examines the payroll tax and benefit formula and reviews literature about OASDI outcomes by race, gender, and earnings level. It describes how mortality, earnings, disability, childbearing, immigration and emigration, and marriage patterns all differ across U.S. racial/ethnic groups, and highlights the importance of these differences for program outcomes. The paper then uses the DYNASIM model to examine lifetime OASDI redistribution under current law and a trust fund-neutral reform package that would enhance system progressivity and improve outcomes for some vulnerable to retirement poverty.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1001231&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Melissa Favreault, Gordon Mermin)</author>
        <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001231_social_security.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="114126"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Taking Back Our Fiscal Future]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[The authors of this paperlongtime federal budget and policy  expertswere drawn together by a deep concern about the nation's long-term  fiscal outlook. Despite diverse  philosophies and political leanings, they found solid common ground and agree  that unsustainable deficits in the federal budget threaten the health and vigor  of the American economy and the first step toward establishing budget  responsibility is to reform the budget decision process so that the major  drivers of escalating deficitsSocial Security, Medicare, and Medicaidare no  longer on autopilot. The paper provides  specific policy recommendations and outlines the reasons action is critical.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1001155&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Joseph Antos, Robert Bixby, Stuart Butler, Paul Cullinan, Alison Fraser, William Galston, Ron Haskins, Julia Isaacs, Maya MacGuineas, Will Marshall, Pietro Nivola, Rudolph G. Penner, Robert D. Reischauer, Alice M. Rivlin, Isabel V. Sawhill, C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001155_fiscal_future.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="122254"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Tax Considerations in a Universal Pension System (UPS)]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[The inadequacy of the current U.S. public and private pension systems may warrant the establishment of a universal pension system (UPS), which would cover all workersfull-time and part-timeand require them to contribute at a level that can help provide them with adequate incomes when they retire. This paper develops options for a system of individual accounts to which, starting in 2007, each employee or self-employed worker would be required to contribute 3 percent of covered payroll (i.e., 3 percent of up to $97,500 in 2007). The UPS we describe would raise the total "replacement rate" for average wage men to 49.0 percent of final wagesprovided Social Security is fixedor 39.8 percent if not]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=411593&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Adam Carasso, Jonathan Barry Forman)</author>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411593_universal_pension_system.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="169120"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Overseas Pension Reforms Offer Lessons for the United States]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[An aging population and soaring health care costs are pressing policymakers to realign Social Securitys promised benefits with its resources. So far, reforms have failed, with the last major changes dating to 1983. International Perspectives on Social Security Reform, new from the Urban Institute Press, takes a close look at public pension changes in six countries that, like the United States, are expecting grayer demographics: Sweden, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Italy.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=901104&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( The Urban Institute)</author>
        <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[How Much Federal Spending Is Uncontrollable?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Discussions of the federal budget often refer to mandatory spending  on Social Security, Medicare, and similar programs  as "uncontrollable." In contrast with discretionary programs that Congress usually funds with annual appropriations, entitlement spending is determined by permanent laws specifying who qualifies for what benefits. This article examines changes in the percentage distribution of federal outlays since 1962. It highlights the rapid growth in mandatory spending driven by increased spending for health and retirement programs and the contrasting decline in defense spending as a share of total spending.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1001093&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Rudolph G. Penner, Julianna Koch)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001093_federal_spending_uncontrollable.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="508797"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Defining Our Long-Term Fiscal Challenges (Steuerle) : Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[In testimony before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, senior fellow C. Eugene Steuerle explained how, in recent decades, the government has wound a straightjacket around federal spending and tax subsidies. The main culprits have been in the broad areas of retirement, health, and taxation. Left alone, it leaves Congress with almost no control over its own budget. Only major systemic reform can restore a normal democratic process. He also highlighted ten consequences of the current budgetary situation.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=901037&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Defining Our Long-Term Fiscal Challenges (Reischauer) : Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[The recent fiscal situation and the intermediate-term budget outlook may appear relatively benign, Urban Institute President Robert Reischauer told the Senate Budget Committee, but deficits and debt will gradually grow to unprecedented and unsustainable levels if current tax and spending policies are not altered significantly. "The challenge we face," he said, "is determining how to balance our desire for improved health against our other priorities. We cannot have it all and ask our children and grandchildren to pick up the tab." The longer policymakers wait to act, the more wrenching the adjustments will have to be.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=901038&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Robert D. Reischauer)</author>
        <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Social Security Reform: One More Time]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[There has been much breast-beating lately about future entitlement spending burdens. The out-year liabilities of Social Security seem quite large$11 trillion in present-value terms. How can the nation ever deal with such major funding problems? While I have offered a specific plan in the past, most notably when I chaired one of the Social Security advisory councils ten years ago, in this paper I focus only on a broader strategy. While the present Social Security system is not by itself terribly far out of long-term actuarial balance, when combined with Medicare, the country is facing major problems in funding projected entitlement spending down the road.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=411447&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Edward Gramlich)</author>
        <pubDate>Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411447_Social_Security.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="71405"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[A Radical Proposal for Escaping the Budget Vise]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[It's clearer by the day that fundamental, radical reform is needed to restore fiscal responsibility to the federal budget. Under current policy, spending grows automatically by default, faster than tax revenues as the population ages and health costs soar. These defaults are threatening the economy with large, unsustainable deficits. More important they deny to each generation the opportunity to orient government toward meeting current needs and its own preferences for services. This brief discusses some ways this might be achieved.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=311192&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Rudolph G. Penner, C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/311192_NBI_3.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="151972"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Social Security Reform : Statement before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[The Social Security debate could and should be part of a larger one in which we engage our fellow citizens in figuring out how to take best advantage of new opportunities created by longer lives and better health.  Since Social Security was first enacted, vast changes have occurred in the economy, life expectancy, health care, the physical demands of jobs, the labor force participation of women, and even the age at which one can be considered old. This testimony focuses especially on our increasing inability to protect the young, the truly old, and the vulnerable when Social Security morphs into a middle-age retirement system.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=900815&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/900815_Steuerle_052505.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="313346"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Alternatives to Strengthen Social Security : Testimony of C. Eugene Steuerle before the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Since Social Security was first enacted, vast changes have occurred in the economic and social circumstances of the nation. In testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, senior fellow Eugene Steuerle addresses Social Security reform and related budget pressures. He presents an array of observations and recommendations dealing with labor force participation, inequities and inefficiencies in the Social Security program, automatic and unsustainable federal spending growth, and private retirement and employee benefit systems.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=900806&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/900806_Steuerle_051205.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="131430"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Whichever Way We Go, Some Get Left Behind]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[[Washington Post] Social Security's original mission was to protect society's most vulnerable from poverty. Figuring out who needs protection and how much of it, however, is not so simple. There are many sources of redistribution in Social Security, from rich to poor, from shorter-lived to longe-lived, and across generational, educational, and racial groups.  This article suggests that attention to this primary mission of Social Security is being lost in the current debate.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=900792&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Social Security Dialogue Should Be Wide-Ranging]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[[USA Today] Before the political momentum for Social Security reform dissipates into a single-minded dispute over how much to trust Americans' retirement wealth to the stock market, or the president goes on the road again to stump for personal accounts, larger questions need attention. Only then will the debate track Social Security's original purpose--meeting the basic economic needs of those considered old by the life expectancy and health standards of each generation.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=900781&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Should the Budget Exclude the Cost of Individual Accounts?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Proposals to replace part of Social Security with individual accounts are now a focus of attention, with the President expressing a strong desire to push forward on creating individual accounts within Social Security.  This paper considers the appropriate budgetary treatment of proposals to create such accounts.  The paper concludes that borrowing to finance such accounts should count as part of the unified deficit and that the transfer of funds into such accounts should count as outlays.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000742&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Jason Furman, Peter Orszag, William G. Gale)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000742_Tax_Break_1-24-05.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="523265"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Taxable Social Security Benefits]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Before 1984, Social Security benefits were exempt from income tax. As part of the Greenspan Commission reforms intended to bolster Social Security's finances, up to 50 percent of Social Security benefits became subject to tax in that year, with proceeds from the income tax allocated to the Social Security Trust Fund. In 2004, we estimate that there are more then 28 million households receiving Social Security benefits.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000653&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Leonard E. Burman, Mohammed Adeel Saleem)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2004 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000653_TaxFacts_051004.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="449965"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[How Progressive Is Social Security and Why?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Social Security was designed to redistribute income from those with higher lifetime earnings to those with lower lifetime earnings. The reason is obvious: the system was created to ensure an adequate retirement income for the elderly. Less obvious is how Social Security's many provisions interact to achieve redistribution. This Straight Talk summarizes the most comprehensive study of those interactions to date, concluding that less-educated, lower-income, and nonwhite groups benefit little or not at all from redistribution in the old age and survivors insurance (OASI) part of Social Security. However, there is substantial redistribution to women, who historically have had lower lifetime earnings than men.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=311016&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle, Adam Carasso, Lee Cohen)</author>
        <pubDate>Sat, 01 May 2004 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/311016_Straight37.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="58077"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[How Progressive Is Social Security When Old Age and Disability Insurance Are Treated as a Whole?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[This brief, building on the discussion of progressivity in Straight Talk 37, shows how including Disability Insurance (DI) restores very modest levels of progressivity to the Social Security system as a whole. That is, some lower lifetime earnings groups that fall victim to regressive trends under the Old-Age Survivors' Insurance program find their situation considerably improved or reversed when DI is added to the mix, in the form of higher internal rates of return on the benefits they receive over a lifetime. Generally, we find that black men, those earning in the bottom quintile, and those dropping out of high school have a greater chance of receiving DI than other groups.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=311017&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle, Adam Carasso, Lee Cohen)</author>
        <pubDate>Sat, 01 May 2004 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/311017_Straight38.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="56870"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[The Budget Outlook: Updates and Implications]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[The Congressional Budget Office (2004) has released new baseline budget projections, covering fiscal years 2005-2014. This article examines the baseline CBO projections, adjusts the official data in ways that more accurately reflect the current trajectory of tax and spending policies, and discusses some of the implications.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000620&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Peter Orszag, William G. Gale)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000620_TaxBreak_021604.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="798435"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Reversal in Budget Policy : Bush's First vs. Proposed Second Term]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Much of the discussion over President Bush's 2004 submission of a proposed budget for fiscal year 2005 and beyond has focused on what it is not. It is not an agenda for major reform. It is not a budget that Congress appears to take seriously, especially given the number of days it is scheduled to be in session for 2004. Here, however, I wish to take the budget at face value and to see what preferences are revealed in it.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000621&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000621_EP_021604.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="713986"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[The Cost of Marriage Inequality to Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Seniors : A Human Rights Campaign Foundation Report]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[When a gay, lesbian, or bisexual senior dies, his or her surviving partner faces a financial loss that can amount to tens of thousands of dollars because the couple cannot be recognized as legally married in the United States. Without marriage, Social Security survivor benefits are not available, retirement plans inherited from a partner are heavily taxed, and estate taxes apply to the inheritance of a home. Using data from Census 2000, this report analyzes and quantifies how the lack of legal marriage recognition affects the financial stability of same-sex senior couples.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=410939&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Lisa Bennett, Gary Gates)</author>
        <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/410939_cost_of_marriage_inequality.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="48184"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Redistribution under OASDI : How Much and to Whom?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[In one of the most comprehensive, intergenerational studies on Social Security's redistribution of lifetime income, the authors find that (1) Social Security, or Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI), is slightly progressive in that persons with high lifetime earnings on average receive lower rates of return than persons with low lifetime earnings; (2) For most generations, the retirement component (OASI) by itself achieves little if any redistribution across income groups, while Disability Insurance (DI) is progressive, it is a relatively small program, and so does not affect overall redistribution under OASDI, except for key groups; and (3) The groups who benefit most when DI is "added" to OASI are men, workers in the bottom earnings quintile, high school dropouts, and minorities. [ Brookings Institution]]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000596&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Lee Cohen, C. Eugene Steuerle, Adam Carasso)</author>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000596_redistribution_under_OASDI.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="52707"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Budget Crisis at the Door]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[In 1995 the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform concluded, "If we do not plan for the future, entitlement spending promises will exceed financial resources in the next century..." (U.S. Congress 1995).  Now, well into the next century, we have still failed to act.  Yet the problem not only remains, but in many ways has intensified simply because we are years closer to the day of reckoning.  Relative to both available revenues and societal needs, we have promised more than we can afford to an elderly and fairly well-off near-elderly population that will soon grow very rapidly as the baby boomers retire and life expectancy continues to increase.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=310883&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Rudolph G. Penner, C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/310883_budget_crisis_at_the_door.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="512412"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Private Pensions: Issues and Options]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[This paper provides an overview of the U.S. system of pensions and tax-preferred saving, examines the effects of current policies, and evaluates proposals for reform. In light of lengthening life spans, earlier retirement, and projected financial shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare, the financial status of the elderly in the future will depend heavily on private saving for retirement. The central goal of the private pension system should be to encourage or provide adequate and secure retirement income in a cost-efficient and equitable manner. Pension reforms should focus on expanding benefits for lower- and middle-income households, improving incentives and opportunities to diversify investments, increasing financial education, improving the structure and rules regarding cash balance plans, and simplifying and strengthening non-discrimination rules.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=310666&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( William G. Gale, Peter Orszag)</author>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2003 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/310666_TPC-DP9.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="125782"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Higher Payroll Taxes? Why?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[[United Press International]  Would most Americans be in favor of raising payroll taxes on the middle class to finance huge income tax cuts for the rich?  Unquestionably, no. Yet, that is exactly what President Bush is now proposing. He argues for cutting tax rates on high-income families, eliminating all estate taxes, and tax-sheltering most of their savingsall of which would be financed by the steep payroll taxes that workers in lower-to-middle income families have been paying for decades.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=900603&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Harry Holzer)</author>
        <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2003 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Lifetime Social Security and Medicare Benefits]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[In reviewing reform proposals, lawmakers typically assess the adequacy of retirement benefits by looking just at annual benefits in the Social Security program alone. However, it is the lifetime package of retirement benefits--including Medicare--that gives the most comprehensive picture of what government is being asked to provide for the elderly. Moreover, it is only by considering benefits as a whole that reformers can consider trade-offs among cash versus medical benefits, more years of retirement versus higher annual benefits, and benefits for the very old versus the younger old. This brief estimates the value of lifetime retirement benefits and taxes promised under current law.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=310667&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle, Adam Carasso)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/310667_Straight36.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="56931"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Three-Quarters of Filers Pay More in Payroll Taxes Than in Income Taxes]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Recent policy discussions have raised the possibility of payroll tax cuts or income tax credits based on payroll tax payments. In 2003, workers and employers each owe 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the first $87,000 of a worker's earnings, and a 1.45 percent Medicare tax on all wages. Although the statutory obligation to pay payroll taxes is split between the worker and the employer, most economists believe that workers bear most or all of the economic burden. About 74 percent of filers owe more payroll taxes (including the employer portion) than individual income taxes, including 85 percent of those with income below $40,000.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000456&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( William G. Gale, Jeff Rohaly)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2003 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000456_payroll_income.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="27077"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Tax on Social Security Benefits Providing More Trust Fund Revenue]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Since 1984, Social Security benefits have been partially subject to federal income tax. The share of benefits subject to tax depends on an expanded measure of income: adjusted gross income plus tax-exempt bond interest and one-half of Social Security benefits. Benefits are only subject to tax if this expanded income measure exceeds $25,000 (single) or $32,000 (married filing jointly). Above these thresholds, up to 50 percent of benefits are included in taxable income if the income measure is below $34,000 for singles or $44,000 for joint filers. For those with higher incomes, legislation enacted in 1993 increased the maximum inclusion rate to 85 percent of benefits; the 85 percent factor was intended to approximate the tax treatment of private pensions.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000458&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Peter Orszag)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2002 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000458_ssfund.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="177274"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[The Moving Pieces of Social Security Reform]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Numerous commissions, advisory groups, and individual policy analysts have concluded that Social Security reform is essential, but numerous politicians do not want it to happen on their watch. Meanwhile, the public remains confused. Analysts widely agree on how to approach the problem. Whether leaning left or right, most say we should rely less on the pay-as-you-go approach and try to fund a portion of benefits--that is, invest part of individual contributions in real assets so that lifetime benefits depend more on the rate of return to real capital and less on such demographic factors as birth rates and expected life spans.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=310600&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Rudolph G. Penner)</author>
        <pubDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2002 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/310600_RetireBrief15.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="37784"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Legal and Institutional Impediments to Partial Retirement and Part-Time Work by Older Workers]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[The paper describes the huge loss of skills and experience that will accompany the retirement of the baby boom generation. The problem can be mitigated by making longer work more attractive through offers of part-time employment and longer vacations. Unfortunately, a number of private practices and public policies have evolved over the years that encourage early retirement and make it challenging for employers and employees to negotiate flexible, partial retirement arrangements. Private and civil service defined benefit pension plans often penalize working beyond the late 50s even though they specify an official retirement age of 65. High health insurance costs for older workers also curb employment opportunities. The combination of tax law, IRS regulations, ERISA, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act create complex barriers to partial retirement that are not insurmountable, but can only be overcome with great effort and the risk of litigation. The authors make a number of suggestions for changing regulations and for new legislation.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=410587&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Rudolph G. Penner, Pamela Perun, C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/410587_SloanFinal.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="276262"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Social Security for Yesterday's Family?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Social Security was designed in the late 1930s, a time when a married male worker and a stay-at-home wife were considered the norm. Is it too late to bring Social Security in sync with contemporary family life? Not at all. Besides reaching financial balance and increasing saving, reform should have two main goals: providing minimum levels of income above poverty and removing obvious inequities.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=310598&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle, Melissa Favreault)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/310598_Straight35.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="46886"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Should Stock Options Be Preferred to 401(k) &amp; Other Plans]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Congress must be careful in deciding whether or not to subject stock options to Social Security and unemployment tax.   There is certainly a case to be made for not doing so, but Congress could find itself in the funny position of offering special employment tax treatment to employees who have stock options while denying it to the same degree to those who buy company stock through a section 401(k) plan.  Moreover, if there is an employment tax preference for stock options but not for other compensation through stock or stock rights, companies may tend to use stock options in lieu of alternative compensation packages that might be more in the best long-run interests of the companies and the nation itself.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000913&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2002 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Social Security's Additional Dollars Could Buy Less Poverty]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Social Security has had great success in reducing poverty, on average, among the elderly. Today, the elderly poverty rate is less than one-third the 35 percent rate seen in 1960. Social Security also protects people from inflation and other risks (as we think it should). The success of any program, however, cannot be judged solely by how well that program succeeds on average. To assess Social Securitys marginal success, a good measure is how much each additional dollar spent improves the lot of the population it serves. Here, we describe three pieces of evidence suggesting that Social Securitys ability to meet one of its most fundamental tenets - alleviating old-age poverty - has hit several roadblocks.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=310371&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle, Adam Carasso)</author>
        <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/Straight33.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="176391"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Limitations of the Individual Account Debate]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[For a variety of reasons, the current social security system does an increasingly weaker job over time in allocating its additional revenues to providing protection against poverty in old-age.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000958&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2001 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[How Women Fare in Social Security Reform : Commentary]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[[Indianapolis Star] Women Democratic senators recently sent President Bush a letter decrying his proposal to divert some payroll taxes into individual accounts, on the grounds that women would take a financial beating. Although many feminist groups hold this view, little empirical evidence supports it.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=900434&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Rudolph G. Penner)</author>
        <pubDate>Sun, 05 Aug 2001 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Withholding Judgment on the Social Security Commission Report]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[The issuance of an interim report by the Social Security Commission sparked a firestorm.  Nonetheless, the report may be "under-interpreted" for what it suggests about dealing with the problems of the poor and "over-interpreted" for what it says about the reforms it will finally propose.  The best course of action is likely wait-and-see.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000960&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Lifetime Distributional Effects of Social Security Retirement Benefits]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[This paper presents alternative measures of actual and projected net benefits (benefits minus payroll taxes) from the Old and Survivors Insurance (OASI) component of Social Security, based on results from a microsimulation model.  The simulations take into account marital histories, income, and tax-burden sharing within couples and differences in life expectancy among sub-groups of the population.  We find that OASI is becoming more redistributive towards lower income groups over time, even as net benefits decline, mostly because of changing demographics and earnings patterns of the workforce.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=410362&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Karen E. Smith, Eric Toder, Howard Iams)</author>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2001 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/410362_retirement-benefits.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="109731"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Two Issues Not on the Current Tax Radar Screen]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle mentions two items that seem to be just below the radar screen of most of those following the tax cut debate: the adjustment of taxation of social security benefits and increases in child credits.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000121&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Social Security and the Poor]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[This article offers an assessment of how well Social Security takes care of the poor.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000202&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Sat, 23 Dec 2000 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Dominant Budget Issue Facing the New President, The]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle makes the case for addressing the retirement of the baby boomers in economic policy sooner, rather than later. Delay, he argues, reduces the chances of long-term structural reform, makes large tax increases almost unavoidable, puts the oldest and most vulnerable of the elderly at greater risk, and invites further price and quantity controls in healthcare.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000094&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[5500 Not-So-EZ, The]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Euegene Steuerle discusses the sensibility of the Schedule 5500 EZ, a form used by so-called "one-participant retirement plans." The taxpayers involved are self-employed, with no employees or leased employees.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000080&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Summers' Time: The Social Security Opportunity (Part 4 of 5)]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle gives the Treasury Department tips on how to make the most of their final months before the 2000 election--specifically with regard to Social Security.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000138&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[401(k) Investment Decisions and Social Security Reform]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[This paper uses the 1995 Survey of Consumer Finances to show that 401(k) participants with an underlying defined benefit plan are more likely to invest in equities than are participants whose 401(k) is their primary plan, suggesting that workers with a guaranteed source of retirement income are more likely to invest their other retirement assets more aggressively. Removing this guarantee might result in more conservative investment. Therefore, using current 401(k) asset allocation behavior to project income under a Social Security individual account system with reduced guaranteed benefits could overstate returns to these accounts, thus overstating their attractiveness relative to the current system.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=410244&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Cori E. Uccello)</author>
        <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/401k_investment.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="95768"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Does Social Security Treat Spouses Fairly?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[In 1939, policymakers designed spousal benefitsintended as payment for nonworking wivesbased on the traditional gender roles of a working husband and his dependent spouse. Although this model of the conventional family is quickly being replaced by the two-earner family, spousal benefits have changed very little since their inception. A number of inequities and distortions arise from maintaining benefits based on archaic notions of family structure.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=309257&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle, Christopher Spiro, Adam Carasso)</author>
        <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/Straight12.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="24844"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Must Privatization Mean Less Progressivity?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Motivated by the belief that private markets function more efficiently than government, some reformers propose depositing workers' Social Security taxes into private accounts, one for each individual. Although critics fear that privatization will erode Social Security's built-in mechanisms for protecting low-wage workers, a reform package could be designed to include individual accounts while maintaining these protections.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=309588&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle, Christopher Spiro)</author>
        <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/Straight11.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="24405"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[The Administration's USA Account Proposal (Part 3 of 3) : Part Three: Why It Won't Work as Crafted]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle argues that the fatal flaw in the administration's strategy behind its private pension proposal is that it is not integrated either with social security reform or with further reform of the private pension system. Accordingly, if adopted as proposed, USA accounts would increase substantially the administrative burdens imposed on taxpayers and the IRS. Some parts of the proposal would be very hard to understand, and, as one consequence, participation could be reduced.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000166&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 1999 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[The Administration's USA Account Proposal (Part 2 of 3) : Part Two: What's Right About It]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle argues that there are advantages to the administration's USA account proposal. It would attempt to use some general revenues to fortify and build up the private pension system. He concludes that with luck, it would develop and reinforce better saving patterns by individuals. The distribution of wealth, pension wealth, and tax subsidies for pensions would all be made more equal. Although the accounts would not be large, they might serve as a catalyst for future private pension reform as well.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000167&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 1999 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[The Administration's USA Account Proposal (Part 1 of 3) : Part One: Genesis]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle comments on the apparent demise of the Clinton Administrations USA proposal, and examines its pros and cons.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000168&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 1999 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Long-Term Care Needs and the Government Response (Part 3 of 3) : Part Three: Tax Policy Concerns]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle raises questions about a proposed long-term care credit, in terms of traditional tax policy issues: administration, costs, equity, budget accounting, and tax simplicity.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000170&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 1999 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Long-Term Care Needs and the Government Response (Part 2 of 3) : Part Two: Budget, Retirement, and Health Policy]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle raises questions about a proposed long-term care credit, in terms of budget, health, and retirement policy.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000171&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 1999 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Long-Term Care Needs and the Government Response (Part 1 of 3)]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[This column by Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle is the first in a series examining key questions about the president's proposal to deal with long-term care through the tax code. The focus will be less on the specific details of that particular proposal than with the type of analysis required to assess its overall merit. Without this analysis, the power and effectiveness of any proposal on long-term care, no matter how constructed, is likely to be significantly diluted.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000172&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[A Government Match for Private Pension Saving?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle examines the 1999 Clinton Administration proposal to create "USA" savings accounts. He concludes that the proposal for a match is one way to try to encourage greater saving, especially among the middle class, but that to be effective, a much more delicate crafting of legislation that simultaneously tries to address the excessive promises of social security along with the inadequacies of the existing private pension system would be required.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000083&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 1999 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA["Spending" the Surplus: Counting the Ways]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle considers the math behind President Clinton's proposal to spend 62 percent of the surplus on Social Security, with another share to be allocated to Medicare, and that the remaining share be spent on other items, including a subsidy for new private pension accounts.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000177&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 1999 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Social Security Reform: The Budget Debate All Over Again]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle comments on what makes Social security and Medicare reform suffer from the same problem that for so long made budget reform difficult. He argues that the reform efforts measure gains and losses, winners and losers, from a base of a system that is imbalanced and whose promises don't add up.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000084&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 1998 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Spending Future Surpluses: A Return to Normalcy?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle suggests what ought to be done with expected surpluses, given the unlikelihood of a tax cut during the fiscal year in which he writes.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000193&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Pension and Saving Incentives By the Bushel-Load]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle lays out the complexity of the variety of pension plans offered by policymakers.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000115&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Policy Challenges Posed by the Aging of America]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[As the nation faces the growing aging population, the authors discuss numerous Social Security reform proposals that would scale back benefits, or use individual savings accounts or increased government and Social Security surpluses to try to increase national saving and, eventually, to replace lost benefits. The authors conclude that proposals should be judged according to their ability to meet various goals or principles. Among the most important are fairness, economic efficiency, and economic growth. More research is needed on the fine points of proposals to fend off a retirement crisis and put Social Security and Medicare on a secure footing. Such research should feed into a national dialogue on Americans' shared retirement future.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000214&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( Leonard E. Burman, Rudolph G. Penner, C. Eugene Steuerle, Eric Toder, Marilyn Moon, Lawrence H. Thompson, Michael  Weisner, Adam Carasso)</author>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1998 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
		<enclosure url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/oldpol.pdf" type="application/pdf" length="1019758"/>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Simple Arithmetic Driving Social Security Reform, The]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[The debate over Social Security reform is awash with numbers on changes in tax rates, benefit reductions, and saving patterns required to bring the system into balance for the long run. In this article, Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle skips around the more elaborate calculations and presents the financing dilemma in a simpler, more understandable, form.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000085&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Mandated Saving and the Fallacy of Aggregation]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Because Social Security spends tax collections almost immediately, rather than putting them aside to fund future retirement costs, it is believed by many to reduce net national saving at a time when other private and public saving are considered too low. This low savings rate coincides with a matured private pension system that does not provide much in the way of benefits for about half the population. These considerations have led many, including Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle, to consider whether government ought to mandate that deposits be made to private saving accounts. In this essay, he concludes that there are several good reasons to favor mandated saving, but one should not exaggerate the extent to which it will increase net saving in society.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000086&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 1996 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Privatizing Social Security: A Third Option (Part 2 of 2) : Part Two: Specifics of a Voluntary Alternative]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle explains how raising the rate of contribution to private accounts by a significant amount, without a substantial increase in mandates or taxes might help clarify the Social Security privatization debate.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000087&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>


    <item>
	<title><![CDATA[Privatizing Social Security: A Third Option (Part 1 of 2) : Part One: Basic Rationale]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow Eugene Steuerle comments on Social Security privatization options, noting that none say much of anything about the current private pension system, its advantages and limitations, nor about the ways that new, mandated, private accounts would be integrated with private accounts already existing. If proposals for privatization of social security move to a more mature second stage, then reform of the private retirement system should be considered at the same time -- Steuerle suggests one such option.]]></description>
	<link>http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?id=1000088&amp;RSSFeed=Social_Security.xml</link>
		<author>info@taxpolicycenter.org ( C. Eugene Steuerle)</author>
        <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 1996 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
		
    </item>
</channel>
</rss>
